Talk:Maafa 21

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Film: Documentary / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Revert

I reverted the addition of Category:Films about abortion because the article is already in this category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. The "See also" section was becoming a coatrack for all the other anti-abortion propaganda films, so I was trying to reduce the bias by replacing the multiple listings with one category listing. Removing the the section entirely is a fine solution. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Reverted removal of conspiracy theory, etc. for NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This person using IPs from Texas is not trying to bring a new viewpoint based on reliable sources. Rather, they are just removing stuff they don't like. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source advocate

Usually, I don't like to admit when I am ignorant of something, unaware of literature or history of which I should be well versed. However, in this case, I believe it serves me well. Before I stumbled here following an editor I feared was disrespecting the spirit of Wikipedia, I had never heard of this documentary or the woman whose historical papers have been used as a source. Now that I am here, I see an article in need of a great deal of work to protect source integrity and the WP:NPOV as required by Wikipedia. Clearly, impassioned feelings have battled here, and to those who have a vested interest in this article, my edits may be painful. However, please know that I could not be more neutral and will edit as I see fit according to Wikipedia policy and nothing else. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Goldberg?

What's with the reliance on Michelle Goldberg? An anti-antiabortion activist since her early teens, as a student "journalist" at the University of Buffalo she urged fellow students to "spit at" antiabortion protesters and "kick them in the head." There's plenty of criticism of the documentary without adding her extremely biased point of view to the mix. 50.228.254.190 (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've walked back some of your changes (a journalist reporting a fact about the film in an article on the movement doesn't become a "critic" just because some people might find the fact unsavory) but it does look like some of the removed content wasn't necessarily in reference to the film specifically, just the broader conspiracy theory movement, so I haven't restored it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bias and Irrelevant References

Many of these article's "references" draw from opinion articles or other web articles that are politically inclined, rather than from relevant source material. Many of the references are also simply unnecessary and/or attached to specific details that could have simply listed the actual documentary as the source.

Given that one of the primary purposes of this article is to summarize the Maafa campaign and film, the film itself should be the primary, if not the only, source referenced. The question of whether the film is conspiratorial, fear-mongering, etc. could be featured in a "Critical Reception" suggestion. I am reluctant to make intensely heavy edits without a second opinion, but I do believe this entire article could benefit from a re-haul. 2600:1702:2590:9380:84F0:723B:1610:DC37 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy prefers reliable secondary sources to primary sources. That said, the sources used here tend to be highly opinionated. Note the reliance on abortion rights activists Michelle Goldberg and Loretta Ross. In general, many of the articles pertaining to abortion in Wikipedia tend to be over-worked and overly contentious, as editors on either side of the issue try to prove points. However, this is the first article about a documentary movie in Wikipedia that I have yet seen to contain a section called Rebuttals. Goodtablemanners (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]